Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: rich@pro-exchange.cts.com (Rich Sims)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Calling Examples Needed Showing Sprint Costs More
Message-ID: <12346@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 18 Sep 90 22:52:11 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 66
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 659, Message 3 of 8


eli@pws.bull.com wrote:

> (You didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition, did you?)

Nope, but I'll try and answer the questions anyway.

> Could you please detail for me [us] your 'calling patterns'
> So I can determine why you paid higher rates than ATT rates when you
> tried out Sprint???  Which rate schedules did you compare?
> (e.g.  sprint plus vs. reach out or normal rates?)

I thought I did that!  I live in South Florida, just north of Miami,
and the majority of my calls were to California, specifically the area
around San Diego.  Apparently the Sprint rates were distance-based,
while the AT&T rates were strictly time based.  The calls were also
(as much as possible) made at the lowest (night) rates for both
companies.

The comparison I made was between AT&T's ROA plan and Sprint's regular
plan.  I don't think it was called Sprint Plus, but I'm not sure.
This was a couple of years ago.

> What exchanges were you calling from and to?

Ouch!  Don't have the bills any more.  All outbound calls were from
the 305-431 exchange.

> What was the disconnect rate?  When and how many calls?

I didn't mention any "disconnects". The phrase I used was "failed
connections".  Sorry if that was ambiguous.  I meant a failure to
reach the number I was calling in the first place.  At this point, I
couldn't possibly supply numbers, dates, or times.  There were several
times I was unable to get the dialled number at all, although this was
the least of the problems.  The main problem was an excessively long
time between placing the call and the connection being made
(apparently), or "busy circuits".

Since the vast majority of the calls were computer-originated, via
modem, the computer would usually give up trying.  Apparently, my
computer has even less tolerance for bad telephone service than I do! :-)

In all fairness, I have to admit that when I managed to place a call
and get a connection, the line quality was usually good for the voice
calls.  I don't know if I could have "heard a pin drop", but I wasn't
particularly listening for that sound.  Data connections were no more
than "so-so", but this may not have been a problem with Sprint's
equipment/lines.

For what it's worth, I also tried the same test sometime later, but
using "casual caller" access to Sprint's service, following receipt of
a fairly large volume of Sprint's propaganda.  The results were even
worse.

It's entirely possible, I suppose, that Sprint has *now* gotten their
act together and is the finest LD company in the world (but I doubt
it).  At this point, however, I'll stick with AT&T, simply because
I've *never* had any problems with them, and it's not worth all the
hassles just to try and save a small amount of money, which never
happened in the first place.

BTW - In comparison to many of the readers of this group, I'm
extremely "unworldly" in matters telephonic.  I just want to be able
to have the silly thing do what I expect ... which it does with AT&T
and did not with Sprint.